If the Bush-Kennedy immigration plan in the Senate is enacted, the United States would be flooded with more than 200 million new legal immigrants in the next 20 years!

The first part of President Bushs televised May 15 immigration speech was carefully crafted to appease his conservative base, which he has alienated with his open borders policies. Hence, the address was front-loaded with references to sovereignty and security and promises to beef up border enforcement with more Border Patrol agents and a temporary deployment of National Guard units. The back end of the address was a salvo aimed at prodding Congress to adopt his proposals of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens already here as well as a continuous flow of foreign guest workers.

Millions of viewers watched President Bushs speech. Many of them, no doubt, focused on the front end (as the speech writers had planned) and came away optimistically hopeful that the president had gotten the message and was finally getting serious about our border crisis. However, on the same day as President Bushs speech, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions released an impact analysis of the Senate immigration bill  which President Bush supports  that will shock and dismay any who are putting hope for sane immigration policy in proposals coming from the White House or the Senate leadership.

The numbers are staggering and mind-numbing. According to the detailed analysis by Sen. Sessions and his staff, if the Senate bill is allowed to pass, we could expect to see up to 217 million legal immigrants enter the U.S. over the next 20 years! Have the president or the Senate leaders in either party given the American people even the slightest hint that this immigration tsunami is hidden within the fine print of the 614-page bill. Of course not; that would be political suicide for any politician supporting the bill. But enacting the bill into law would amount to national suicide, as no nation has ever, or could ever, survive such an immigration onslaught.

As Senator Sessions points out, the bill allows at least 6.5 million, and up to 60.7 million new guest workers to come to the United States over the next 20 years. There is nothing temporary about these workers. Employers may file a green card application on their behalf as soon as they arrive in the United States, or the worker may self-petition for a green card after four years of work. The bill would also allow at least 7.8 million, and up to 72.8 million immediate family members of low-skilled workers to come to the United States over the next 20 years.

Furthermore, the Senate bill dramatically multiplies the number of H-1B visas for skilled workers by increasing the annual cap of 65,000 to 115,000, and by automatically increasing the new cap by 20 percent each year the cap is hit. In addition, it creates a new exemption to the cap for anyone who has an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math. In other words, unlimited visas for everyone with real or fake degrees from any foreign university.

Unfortunately, bad as the provisions cited above are, they do not even begin to tell the whole story. The Sessions analysis lists a number of other provisions that would add millions more to the immigration tidal wave. And these numbers do not even include what is commonly referred to as chain migration, which occurs when an immigrant becomes a citizen. Citizens have a legal right to bring in family members other than spouses and children. They can bring in their parents, their adult siblings, and the spouses and children of their adult siblings, causing exponential immigration growth.

Even the above astounding numbers do not tell the whole bitter truth, however, since they do not include illegal migration. With our legal immigration process already in a shambles and backlogged for years, this new tsunami will encourage additional millions  and tens of millions  to take advantage of the chaos to enter the United States illegally. In August of last year the Pew Hispanic Center released the results of a national survey it had conducted in Mexico showing that 46 percent of Mexicans indicated they would move to the United States if they had the opportunity and the means. What does that mean in real numbers? Mexico is the twelfth largest nation in the world by population: 107 million. Forty-six percent of that total is around 50 million. It is probably no exaggeration to suggest that the U.S. is a similarly desirable destination for a similar percentage of all of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, which have a combined population of 530 million. That could translate into a couple hundred million people headed northward to crash our besieged border.

If American voters learn about these hidden deadly traps in the Senate bill, they will surely loose a roar of outrage that will send its sponsoring politicians scurrying for cover. And it is not too much to hope that they also will wreak havoc on the perpetrators at the ballot box in November.

Please go to the John Birch Society's "Help Solve the Illegal Immigration" Action Page to see how you can help the grassroots conservative effort to protect the value of American citizenship and American sovereignty and preserve America as we all know it

Team Bush, via Tony Snow, has become a member of a special group: gobbledegookers.

Clinton was well known for parsing words and Kerry became expert at nuancing word meanings. Now, Team Bush, who continue to say that amnesty isn't amnesty have applied a nomenclature to their own brand of verbalization: linguistic precision.

Technically, a pardon is a more accurate term as there is a punishment assigned to the crime.

amnesty n. a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out. Examples: a) the amnesty given to Confederate officials and soldiers after the Civil War, or b) President Jimmy Carter's granting amnesty (under certain conditions) to those who violated the Selective Service Act in evading the draft during the Vietnam War. The basis for amnesty is generally because the war or other conditions that made the acts criminal no longer exist or have faded in importance. Amnesty is not a pardon as some believe, since a pardon implies forgiveness, and amnesty indicates a reason to overlook or forget the offenses.

11
posted on 05/19/2006 7:30:00 AM PDT
by mnehring
(Those who advocate, and act to promote, victory by Democrats are not conservatives!)

It's amazing that anyone is buying this nonsense from these folks. They contrive a new fake straw man definition of Amnesty (instant citizenship etc) and then say that their universal legalization of illegal aliens isn't the Amnesty the dictionary says it is.

Hopefully their dishonest scam will meet its deserved demise at the hand of the House.

13
posted on 05/19/2006 7:43:54 AM PDT
by RodgerD
(Reject the Immigration Explosion Act of 2006. No to 100 million new aliens.)

Technically, a pardon is a more accurate term as there is a punishment assigned to the crime. amnesty

n. a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out. Examples: a) the amnesty given to Confederate officials and soldiers after the Civil War, or b) President Jimmy Carter's granting amnesty (under certain conditions) to those who violated the Selective Service Act in evading the draft during the Vietnam War. The basis for amnesty is generally because the war or other conditions that made the acts criminal no longer exist or have faded in importance. Amnesty is not a pardon as some believe, since a pardon implies forgiveness, and amnesty indicates a reason to overlook or forget the offenses.

MY dictionary, "AMNESTY, the act of an authority (as a Government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals."

15
posted on 05/19/2006 8:52:55 AM PDT
by org.whodat
(Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)

Amazing how that number grows EVERY day. Gee the entire population of Mexico is 107 million. Amzing how any lie as long as it validates the Perpetually Pissed feelins is mindlessly accepted and repeated. Sort of like the lie "29% of all prision inmates are illegals." Just another manufatured lie to panic people into hysteria.

16
posted on 05/19/2006 8:54:23 AM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Conservative, The simple fact about DC is this . "There is more work to do"...)

Until now, I've not heard anyone claim this estimate was a "lie"...I take it you've read the proposed bill (which I understand has been amended now to eliminate the automatic cap increases, thanks to conservatives like Senator Sessions) and can let us know why the Senator's estimates are a lie?

and do you think the guest worker provisions are limited to Mexico? The growth rate in Central America is astronomical...the population is expected to double between 2000 and 2025...add 63 million Central Americans to whatever portion of Mexico's population over the next 25 years wants to come to the US...then look at South America, Africa, Europe, the Middle East...are you really trying to claim that there would not be enough people in the world over the next 20 years that want to immigrate to the US to reach the potential numbers of immigrants in the Senate bill...or come close enough to radically alter this nation?

Sort of like the lie "29% of all prision inmates are illegals."

Not exactly a lie...but, in fact, its worse for the open borders crowd than saying that 29% are illegal aliens...in fact, according to the report of the National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, June 2003, 29% of prison inmates in the US are aliens...legal and illegal. You can, as they say, look it up if you don't want to believe it

The statement that 30 percent of prison inmates are ILLEGALS is true and can be backed up. If you really want to be truthful about things you should research before you jump in and call people liars.

I have posted the link on FR before and I won't bother now but you can google easy enough and get the statistics but of course you won't because you would rather call names(liar, perpetually pissed) then actually back you talk with facts. The total of Mexicos population is an unkown to me but I will state this, what ever it is in 20 years it will be bigger it won't stay static.

This article may be an exaggeration but one thing is clear, if you allow 12 to 20 million(the conservative figure) people to come here and then bring another 12 to 20, at a minimum if you imply spouses and don't factor in Children, you are doubling the amount of ILLEGALS here in one fell swoop. If you factor in just two children for each of the 40 million couples then you have added another 80 million so now we are up to 100 million without even tapping into NEW ILLEGALS that will start flowing here as soon as our idiotic government passes this amnesty, which God forbid they don't.

Stick your head in the sand but the problem won't go away.

19
posted on 05/19/2006 9:48:16 AM PDT
by calex59
(No country can survive multiculturalism. Dual cultures don't mix, history has taught us that!)

If the Bush-Kennedy immigration plan in the Senate is enacted, the United States would be flooded with more than 200 million new legal immigrants in the next 20 years!

That is an utterly nonsensical number. Utterly absurd OK? The largest mass migration in world history was Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan in the 1940s. No where even near this number 200,000,000. Logistically you simply COULD NOT move this many people without totally disrupting every aspect of the both societies. It's absurd. Making hysterical chicken little claims does NOT help the cause. It makes the screamers look like fools.

20
posted on 05/19/2006 9:52:22 AM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Conservative, The simple fact about DC is this . "There is more work to do"...)

I see. Another example of the Perpetually Pissed hysteric Validate-my-emotional-feelings-about-Immigration-don't- bother-me-with-facts-and-reality daily rants. That it is utter nonsense doesn't matter. It validates the Perpetually Pissed and that is all that matters. So what is it going to be Monday? 250,000,000? 300,000,000? 350,000,000. The number has all ready doubled THIS week. The ONLY thing going up faster then Education spending is Illegal Immigrantion guesstimates

21
posted on 05/19/2006 9:57:14 AM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Conservative, The simple fact about DC is this . "There is more work to do"...)

Seems the figure has jumped from 130 million to 200 million sence the Heritage Foundation's story broke just 2 days ago. How did we add another 70 million overnight?

With the entire population of Mexico being just over 104 million, I have a hard time with the math, even when I consider all the countries in the world with people with people wanting to come to America.

Even the author of the Heritage Foundation story in a radio interview I heard said his 130 million was the high-end worse case scenario. By why bother with details like that. The big number make better headlines.

Its like some wall street news service coming out and saying that the price of gas in 2009 could be between 2.50 and 6.00 a gallon, and the next day headlines on blogs read - experts predict 6.00 a gal by 2009.

This is a comprehensive pathway that will bring millions out of the shadows and into the light.

YUMA, AZ -- "First of all, in this debate there should be -- nobody should be given an automatic citizenship -- that's called amnesty. I oppose amnesty. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, to those who have played by the rules. Amnesty would undermine the rule of law. And amnesty would invite a further wave of illegal immigrants."

It is allowing illegals to continue their activities unabated, until they pay a fine. It removes none of them. It grants them rights and privileges. Thusly, it pardons their illegal actions. And that is amnesty.

You can parse and nuance and use 'linguist precision' (the new WH buzz phrase) but that is just lipstick on this pig.

Even the author of the Heritage Foundation story in a radio interview I heard said his 130 million was the high-end worse case scenario. By why bother with details like that. The big number make better headlines.

Robert Rector, who authored the Heritage Foundation's study was with Senator Sessions at his press conference. Rector has said 217 million immigrants is unlikely over the next 20 years because he doesn't believe the guest worker caps will be hit every year (thereby triggering the automatic increases). This is an undeniable fact though...the way the Senate bill was set up (since amended), 217 million immigrants could be admitted over the next 20 years...this is not an estimate...it is the maximum number that could have been realized under that bill. Whether or not it was realized is where the estimates come in

Would it be much better if only 1/4 of the potential immigrants come to the US over the next 20 years? Would you be happy to have 50 million more low skilled aliens in this country? Exactly how does that benefit the American people as a whole?

I do get a chuckle out of people that do not learn from history. When the 1965 Immigration Act was passed (radically altering the low immigration policies the US had in place since 1924), Congressmen and Seantors assured the American people that the high estimates of immigrants should not concern them...they would never come to pass.

First our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same Second, the ethnic mix of the country will not be upset Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia--Senator Ted Kennedy in advocating passage of the 1965 Immigration Act

Could this prediction have been more wrong on every count...and there are many more such quotes in the Congressional record. Don't be naive and don't get fooled again

You can parse and nuance and use 'linguist precision' (the new WH buzz phrase) but that is just lipstick on this pig.

My other post was sarcasm. I agree with you on this.

Heather Mac Donald: Bush's "illegals-must-wait-at-the-end-of-the-line" line is a con: by remaining in the country and jumping into the citizenship line, rather than the visa line, illegals have catapulted way ahead of law-abiding intending immigrants waiting in their home countries for a visa.

snip

George Borjas: ...illegals being granted relief will have to "wait in line behind those who play by the rules." As of last night, some Filipinos have been waiting since November 1, 1983. Somehow, I suspect that Bush's amnesty does not include a 23-year queue. In short, an untrustworthy and depressing sales pitch.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.